Many of you have tipped us about the events taking place on campus today, and we would like to showcase our support for the supporters and our LGBTQA community on campus by displaying the protesters hard at work! It’s okay that it was 8am! We ain’t even mad.

THANK YOU for showing those people that Columbia will NOT stand for their hatred and bigotry. NYC might seem like a great place to be gay, but it's still scary and disheartening when such events are being conducted on our campus.

Let's censor everyone! In fact, the Soviets had it right. People who don't support "Marriage Equality" or any of the Frankfurt School's metanarrative should be imprisoned in hard labor camps for a minimum of ten years. It's great we have people like you to stamp out hatred in this country.

Hi there! It's clear that you weren't at our protest, or you would have no cause to make these accusations. When we protested the event in the morning, we stood outside holding signs and chanting to make our support for marriage equality and LGBT people clear. We were not protesting the fact that Columbia allowed the conference to take place; rather, we were protesting the views expressed at the conference without inhibiting their expression. To paraphrase Justice Brandeis, the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship.

We also protested a particular speaker at the conference who gave his defense for marriage as between one man and one woman. We attended the event, silently held pro-marriage equality flyers in front of us without obstructing anyone's view, listened to the speaker, and submitted dozens of questions challenging his arguments and pointing out his logical fallacies in a respectful but strong, frank, and hard-hitting way. We had originally planned to walk out of the event, but we decided to stay in order to hear the speaker attempt to answer our challenges, instead walking out after he had finished answering the last question. The speaker was attempting to make an intellectual argument, and however much we disagreed with it or even thought that it was based on bigotry, we met him on those terms.

@Anonymous: Because there is absolutely no logical reason why two people of the same gender cannot marry. None whatsoever. Just because someone has an opinion about what should be doesn't mean it stands against reason, not to mention justice and compassion.

I appreciate Janine and her fellow protestors' display of respect for the First Amendment rights of their ideological opponents. Most same-sex marriage proponents I have observed or encountered seem to believe that their cause is of such overarching importance, they are entitled to dispose of the idea of civilized disagreement.

It would have been helpful to non-CU readers to know what it was that was actually, you know, said by the proponents of traditional marriage, but it seems that the folks at Bwog think that it doesn't matter; the only thing that those who missed the event need to know is that "marriage equality" ruled the day because, well, how could it not? The links above just show snarky YouTube videos rather than video or audio of what happened inside the event.

I expected more of an Ivy school. Should I have?

If indeed, there was a rare rancor-free exchange of pointed debate on the topic, that could really be interesting. At least, it would be interesting to me, because I've found it difficult to discuss the future of marriage, adoption, the nuclear family and how the law deals with trends toward nontraditional sexual mores honestly and intelligently without the conversation rapidly devolving into profane (and occasionally scatological) rants against people who share my viewpoint.

omg why are you trolling anything that has to do with anything remotely liberal/marriage equality? you used "the Frankfurt school" argument in your comment about CUCR "compromising values." go find something else to do, and learn to switch up your rhetoric

omg why are you trolling anything that has to do with anything remotely liberal/marriage equality? you used "the Frankfurt school" argument in your comment about CUCR "compromising values." go find something else to do, and learn to switch up your rhetoric

@Correction: That was an issue on my end. I misread the statement. My brain just processed the Ch- and the -ity. That was not a problem on behalf of the Dems. Thank you for pointing it out! The error has been corrected.